Introduction
Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill demonstrate two contrasting moral theories. The philosophers have very different ideas about ethics and happiness. Immanuel Kant, author of “Duty and Reason”, believed in the morality of goodwill and duty. According to Kant, happiness is an emotion unable to be controlled while motive is controllable; therefore, duty is the most important aspect of leading a moral life. Conversely, John Stuart Mill, who wrote, “The Greatest Happiness Principle”, is well known as a utilitarian, who stresses the greatest happiness for the greatest amount. While they may have disagreed about what makes an action ethical, Kant and Mill are both extremely significant philosophers.
Ethics can be defined as “the conscious reflection on our moral beliefs to improve, extend or refine those beliefs in some way.” Kantian moral theory and Mill’s Utilitarianism ethics theory are two theories that attempt to answer the ethical nature of human beings. This paper will attempt to explain how and why Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism differ as well as critically discuss and compare why Kant’s theory provides a more plausible account of ethics.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Kant’s Deontology
Kant’s theory is what is known as a Deontological theory, which means duty in Greek. The deontological theory assesses whether actions are right or wrong based on whether they conform to our duties. For Kant what is most important in life is having goodwill, will actions that conform to one’s duty, because it is one’s duty to do so. In other words, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethical theory assesses if actions are moral based on the person’s will or intention of acting. The main idea of Kantian includes the rightness or wrongness of action as property of the act itself not as its consequences. Wrong actions contain hidden contradictions in that they depend on other people not doing them if they are to make sense for me to do them. This being said, there are two elements to having goodwill: actions must conform to the moral law. A person must choose the actions solely because it’s the right thing to do- they must have the right motive (doing one’s duty). The person with goodwill does not do the right actions because they fears punishment or hopes for a reward or any other pleasure. They do the right thing because it’s the right thing to do.
Kant’s theory can be categorized as deontological because “actions are not assessed to be morally permissible based on consequences they produce, but rather on the form of the agent’s will in acting,” (Timmons, 2002), therefore his actions are based on duty and not consequential. The Kantian theory is based on three principles: maxims, willingness, and the categorical imperative. Kant states that a maxim is a ”general rule or principle which will explain what a person takes himself to be doing and the circumstances in which he takes himself to be doing it” (Feldman, 1999, 201). It is important that this principle is universalized and that the maxim can be applied consistently to everyone who encounters similar situations, therefore willed as a universal law. Put differently, he suggests that we should never act instead in such a way but act on maxims which you could will as a universal law. Kant says we need to ask ourselves whether we could live in a world, where every other person acts according to the principle we act on. For example when a student cheated on a test because he did not study, according to Kant he should ask himself, would he want to live in a world, where everyone everywhere always cheated, taking an exam they did not prepare for? It seems that this will be an undesirable world, for example, the grades would not be able to be trusted, and academic honors would be meaningless and violate the moral duty and the moral law in other words.
The second aspect of Kant’s theory is willingness. This involves the agent consistently committing oneself to make an action occur. He states “In general, we can say that a person wills inconsistently if he wills that p be the case and he wills that q be the case and it's impossible for p and q to be the case together” (Feldman, 1999, 203). In other words, the Humanity Principle is where one acts in such a way to treat humanity in your person or a person of another always as an end and never as a means. He believes that human beings have infinite intrinsic value because we are rational beings. Each person is capable of forming their purposes and goals. When acting toward another person we need to remember that each person has goals, plans, dreams, and desires just like you. We cannot reduce people to mere objects to fulfill our plans. The worth and value of human beings come solely from what they are and not from a utility or a job they do for someone else. Any act that involves using another person, or even oneself as a means, without also respecting the person as an end counts as an act that violates the moral law and one’s duty.
Kant came up with another test to see if actions are in accord with duty or fit with the moral law, known as the categorical empirical states. The importance of the categorical imperative is that one must act in such a way that one can ensure that the maxim behind one’s actions can be conceived as part of the universal law. The maxim has to be consistent and able to be applied to every situation, for every person. The other main point of Kantian moral theories is the differences between imperfect and perfect duties. Perfect duties are those duties that one must always perform in a particular situation, whereas imperfect duties are those that one must perform only when the situation arises.
Mill’s Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism theory was applied by Jeremy Betham, who was born in 1748, and John Stuart Mills, born in 1806 with the principle: ‘the best for the most. Together, they arrived at the idea that “what is right is whatever produces the right outcome for most people, what is wrong is anything that fails to do that. Put differently, Utilitarianism is based upon utility or doing that which produces the greatest happiness. According to this theory, the morality of an act is found just if the consequence produces the greatest overall utility for everyone. However, if the greatest possible utility is not produced, the action is then morally wrong. This view says that a person should act to produce the greatest overall happiness and pleasure for everyone who may be directly or indirectly affected by the action. Therefore, a utilitarian would require that for every action the corresponding consequences for every action should be thoroughly weighed and alternatives proposed before deciding whether or not to perform such an action.
Some of the strong points of this theory include that it makes ethics practical by equating what is morally right with the producer’s beneficial outcomes. In addition, it corresponds with the wide standpoint that rationality is the preference of the best means to reach our ends. Finally, it also maintains that happiness is the highest good. However, on the other hand, utilitarianism also supposes that we can see ahead into the future, gauge consequences impartially and calculate which continuing consequences are not important. It does not take into account the matter of intention and cannot account, unlike Kant’s theory that some actions are not permissible.
Similarities between the theories
Kantian moral theory and Utilitarianism are similar in the respect that they both attempt to explain how one can go about acting ethically, however, they differ in areas of measuring morality and their usage of rules. While there are many differences, they are both objectives, looking for the greater good. Both can have very different paths, however, in the end, they are looking for the greater good. With Utilitarianism: one may be promoted by many other people, supporting them to go in one direction, while Kantian it may be a single person, being supported on the other side of the worst path to follow.
Both Kant and Mills measure morality in different ways. Kantianism says that an act is deemed moral for two reasons: if it is done for the sake of duty and if its maxim can be willed as a universal law. If one completes an action based on their duty to perform, they do the right thing because it is what they feel they ought to do as their duty. Therefore, this act would be considered morally just. Utilitarianism, on the other hand, would only see the act as morally permissible if the consequences of that action produce maximum utility and happiness for all involved.
Differences between the two theories
The two theories also differ in how rules are applied. Both follow paths to the good, but Kantian theory suggests that humans are free rational beings capable of rational behavior and should not be used purely for the enjoyment or happiness of another. It basically can be argued that I am not going to steal because I don’t want someone stealing from me. Kantian moral theory values the universal law and maxims as its guide for how people should act in a given situation. Maxims “describe some general sort of situation, and then propose some form of action for the situation. To adopt a maxim is to commit yourself to act in the described way whenever the situation in question arises.” (Feldman, 1999, 202) Maxims are also used consistently throughout and therefore are a valued guide because they apply universally. For example, Kant made a moral rule for lying which says that if one person can make a lying promise, then it should be said that everyone can do the same and therefore it being a universal law trust would be self-defeating. By saying that it is not a perfect duty to lie, the universal law or rule, states that no one can under any circumstance lie. Kant has also developed similar moral rules for rusting of talents, helping others in distress, and suicide. Kantianism can therefore be seen as a rational and logical theory in which decisions can be made.
On the other hand, with utilitarianism, we should do actions, which produce the greatest amount of happiness. Utilitarianism would say, “I am not going to steal because everyone would be happier if I don’t steal.” In comparison, Utilitarianism has no universal set of rules on which morality is based; therefore it judges each situation individually. Because of this, weighing consequences to determine if an action will maximize utility can become a lengthy, time-consuming process. Not to mention the fact that you will never clearly know if your decision will in effect truly promote the most utility.
In assessing the two moral theories, I believe that Kantianism provides a more plausible account of ethics even though from the outside it seems as though Utilitarianism would be the more ethical theory because it looks to maximize utility. Utilitarianism refers to moral theories that maintain that an action is morally right if the consequences of that action are more favorable than unfavorable. Therefore, correct moral conduct is determined solely by analyzing an action’s consequences. Utilitarianism requires that we first tally both the good and bad consequences of an action; we then determine whether the total good consequences outweigh the total bad consequences. If the good consequences are greater, then the action is morally proper. If the bad consequences are greater, then the action is morally improper. It seems as though this process is more subjective and can not be universally applied whereas Kantianism can be. Also, one’s determination of what produces the greatest utility may not be consistent with another person’s, therefore this theory is inconsistent and a universal law cannot be applied to it. Kantianism is by far more consistent of a theory and can be universally applied to all beings. It is more plausible because even if the consequences of actions aren’t necessarily the best, the agent is still obligated to act. After all, they must do so. Therefore, ethically and morally they are doing the right thing.
In conclusion, this paper has discussed two main theories regarding the ethical behavior of human beings. Kantianism is a theory based on duties, maxims, willingness, and the categorical imperative. Utilitarianism is based on the concept that we ought to do whatever produces the greatest overall utility and this will be the morally right action. Both theories, although similar in some ways, possess clear differences. Kantianism focuses on the motivation of actions, has a clear and distinct set of universal rules, and is morally logical. On the other hand, Utilitarianism relies on the consequences of an action, has no set universal laws as each action is assessed on an individual basis, and morality is based on the results of the assessment. Because of these reasons, I believe that Kantianism is the more ethically plausible theory of the two.
Bibliography
- Lecture notes, ‘Utilitarianism.’
- Lecture notes, ‘Kantianism.’
- Fred Feldman, ‘Kant’s Ethics Theory: Exposition and Critique’ from H. J. Curzer, ed Ethical Theory and Moral Problems, Belmont, Ca: Wadsworth Publishing Co. 1999.
- J.S. Mill, ‘What Utilitarianism Is’ from Peter Y. Windt, An Introduction to Philosophy: Ideas in Conflict, St Paul, MN: West Publishing, 1982.
Stuck on your essay?
